All eyes on Filner

In response to “Bob Filner, king of chaos” (Editorial, April 14), describing the city attorney’s Substantially Equal lawsuit: This lawsuit goes beyond SDCERS now successfully collecting costs substantially equal from employees. (Except the city attorney and pensionable City Council members are not subject to that rule). This lawsuit is about tossing chunks of employees’ paychecks on the down-market losses of 2008-09. (Wonder how and when employee payroll deductions/credits would happen in our volatile market?)

The Pension Reform Committee said defined benefit plans are inherently risky for employers. Red flags fly as our volunteer pension board is again subject politically to redefine the pension plan. Some news floats about this only being a tool for leverage in salary negotiations.

Under this Substantially Equal lawsuit, the city attorney and pensionable City Council members would exclude themselves from paying for losses and keep their defined benefit plan the same. The redefining of 1954’s “substantially equal” would only apply to other pensionable employees.

The U-T’s editorial liked the shiny bright wrapper on the lawsuit. Inside the details are a punch for taxpayers. Traditionally 70 percent of pensions are paid by pension investment returns. This lawsuit requires that in good financial times, taxpayers would lose half of SDCERS’ investing gains to employees. Traditionally pension investment gains are used to lower the city’s annual required contribution (ARC) to SDCERS. The city would be betting on negative markets to fund street repair, but in the long term, employees would experience positive gains at taxpayers’ expense. – Patricia Karnes, San Diego

San Diegans should not be surprised with the caustic personality and obstructionist “management style” of Bob Filner.

As noted by the U-T and well-known by all, Mr. Filner is unabashedly beholden to organized labor, even at the expense of all citizens. Of the electorate, 51.5 percent have received what they deserve. Unfortunately the other 48.5 percent of us have received what we did not. – Tim DiMasi, San Diego

In response to “Possibility of Filner recall finds eager audience” (Local, April 10): What hubris! Mayor Filner has been in office for less that five months and already conservatives are trying to mount a recall campaign.

They’re probably still astounded that he won in the first place. It must have been a mistake! All those Obama-loving liberals somehow were so ignorant that they elected someone not of the establishment. All those evil union members ganged up on good conservatives and stole the election. Didn’t they know? He’s a Democrat! It must have been a mistake. We need to fix it with a recall!

Carl DeMaio’s appeal was to the select group of developers, hoteliers, convention center aficionados and special-assessment-district groupies who saw a DeMaio administration as continuing the cash-cow relationship that they have enjoyed with city government for years. That is a pretty small core of voters. Filner’s style is brash and antithetical to the winks and nods that have gone on between developers and the city for years.

One difference now is that the local paper is on other side. We only read negative comments about him in the paper because the U-T backed the DeMaio, and they buy the ink.